Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What’s Wrong with Florida Governor Rick Scott?

Roblimo (357) writes | more than 3 years ago

User Journal 23

Rick Scott was elected governor of Florida by a narrow margin, propelled into office by a campaign he financed with $78 million of his own money that was aimed at mentally handicapped citizens and Alzheimer’s sufferers. Since we have plenty of these people in Florida, Scott won. And now he’s letting us down. He’s supposed to be the tea-est of tea partiers, but Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is getting so much tea party glory that there’s hardly any left over for Rick ScoRick Scott was elected governor of Florida by a narrow margin, propelled into office by a campaign he financed with $78 million of his own money that was aimed at mentally handicapped citizens and Alzheimerâ(TM)s sufferers. Since we have plenty of these people in Florida, Scott won. And now heâ(TM)s letting us down. Heâ(TM)s supposed to be the tea-est of tea partiers, but Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is getting so much tea party glory that thereâ(TM)s hardly any left over for Rick Scott. The thing is, on the surface Scott is just about as loonie a tea partier as you can find outside of a mental hospital. He claimed he was going to bring 700,000 new job to Florida, then made it clear in his first budget proposal that he was going to lay off a whole bunch of state employees â" except in his own office, which he wants to grow by 91 employees and $343 million in funding.

Read the rest at Roblimo.com

cancel ×

23 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OK (0)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35328890)

Rick Scott was elected governor of Florida by a narrow margin

Irrelevant.

propelled into office by a campaign he financed with $78 million of his own money

Good.

that was aimed at mentally handicapped citizens and Alzheimer’s sufferers

False. (You just aren't intelligent enough to understand it, so you think it's dumb. Common mistake.)

The thing is, on the surface Scott is just about as loonie a tea partier as you can find outside of a mental hospital.

Ibid.

He claimed he was going to bring 700,000 new job to Florida

Which makes him no nuttier than any liberal Democrat ... or moderate Democrat ... or moderate Republican ... or independent ...

He says (and he’s almost certanly right) that high-speed rail will lose money. No shit. So do streetlights, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want them, does it?

See, this is what I mean about intelligence. Street lights are necessary, a responsibility of the people who own and operate the streets. And no, streets don't lost money ... and in fact, street lights probably don't either, as without them, the costs associated with the accidents would likely by high.

Except, I suspect, that in the little shriveled things Scott and the other teapartarians use for brains, they don’t want tax-paid streetlights — except in their own gated communities.

Yes, again with your lack of intelligence: no, people for limited government still want government to take care of the responsibilities the government has. The question is not whether government should pay for street lights, it's whether we should have government owning and operating roads. If they do, then of course, they should pay for the operation of the roads, including the street lights.

Scott unveiled his first budget at a teapartarian gathering in a Christian church, not at one that welcomed all Florida voters.

First, the church DOES welcome all voters. You're wrong again. Second, NO government budget is EVER unveiled, in my experience, in a place that can fit all voters.

The story Scott Walker wants you to see is one about evil, greedy union bosses who shit on the people of Wisconsin and dare to have employer-provided health insurance in a New America where workers are supposed to be huddled masses and wretched refuse who don’t talk back to their betters, not middle-class people who own houses and take vacations in their motorhomes.

Yawn. Your lying aside, Walker simply recognizes the fact that unions have brought his government to the place where the cost of employing people is much higher than in the private sector, and that collective bargaining -- while not inherently bad -- is the primary tool used to create the problem. (And by the way, how the hell can anyone believe collective bargaining is a "right"? I love that "Democracy for America" is standing up for the principle that unions can force a democratically elected government to go against the will of its people. And they don't seem to get the irony.)

Walker is not telling you that Wisconsin’s budget problems are largely caused by tax cuts on businesses and richies that he himself has supported.

Yes, Walker is not telling this obviously stupid lie. So? There's no truth to this, Robin. You're just pulling it out your ass and making it up as you go along.

Believe it or not, I heard a loonietarian talking about the Laffer Curve the other day as if it hadn’t been totally discredited years ago.

Well, it HASN'T been discredited. Ever. Disagreeing with it is not discrediting it. I absolutely defy you to point to any paper or study that remotely discredits it. You cannot. Again, your lack of intelligence betrays you.

You're the nutty one here, Robin. You're so angry it's blinding you to the facts. You don't have to agree with people, obviously, but your dislike of them is so intense that you actually believe they cannot be right, that they must be wrong, because your feelings against them are so strong. It's, frankly, kinda sad.

Re:OK (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35330980)

Your lying aside...

Tee Hee... Listening to your banal little descriptions* of the world are so... Actually, it's intriguing.. I have a deep interest in the absurd, and you and your glam rock friend there are ideal studies. Comedic, yes, but can be dangerous with heavy machinery and sharp objects.

*ripped straight from the headlines and Glenn Beck's blackboard, as you have posted no thoughts of your own.

Re:OK (0)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331208)

I have a deep interest in the absurd

You're not convincing anyone, you know: we are all well aware that if you COULD actually demonstrate anything I said to be "absurd," you would.

ripped straight from the headlines and Glenn Beck's blackboard, as you have posted no thoughts of your own.

Yeah, no one's buying that either. I've often expressed my dislike of Beck's show, and I don't watch it; and further, no one here believes I don't think for myself.

I say this only to point out that if you're going to troll, at least TRY to make it remotely convincing.

Re:OK (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35331768)

...if you COULD actually demonstrate anything I said to be "absurd," you would.

Every word you utter, or put on paper.. But I suppose the standouts are your accusations of liar. . Just like the eternal quote "... the assassin accusing the assassin...". There was a another funny remark you made somewhere crediting the bible with ending slavery in the US. I'll dig it up if I feel like I really have to. No, pudge, you are the embodiment of the word. Aside from the associated destruction, it's pure comedy. Must be a ploy to keep people from protesting. Disable them with laughter. There's always something to say for the "disarming smile" when it keeps the victim from noticing the knife in his back.

Re:OK (0)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35333888)

if you COULD actually demonstrate anything I said to be "absurd," you would.

Every word you utter, or put on paper.

So, thank you for admitting you do not know what "demonstrate" means.

Plonk.

Re:OK (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341188)

Of course I do. Your words are the demonstration.. There's nothing to add. We've been through this many times. By habit you deny the facts, so a reenactment on my part will serve no purpose. You have to get me drunk first. If, by chance, you ever comprehend the words you write, you will understand with crystal clarity their absurdness and unoriginality of thought in that they are simply recitals of paid pundits regurgitations. You yourself offer nothing whatsoever other than your services to a machine.

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35341854)

By habit you deny the facts, so a reenactment on my part will serve no purpose.

A completely non-credible dodge. TRY HARDER.

Re:OK (1)

iamtheantipudge (1091487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35343650)

My dear brother, you still fail to see. There is nothing to dodge when stating the self evident. Your words are absurd. You are a clown. You are the monkey on the organ grinders leash. You are a good servant. That's all there is.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35333742)

further, no one here believes I don't think for myself.

Debatable, for sure. After all, thinking for yourself and posting things you believe in are not inherently the same thing.

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35333874)

Debatable, for sure.

Not really, no.

After all, thinking for yourself and posting things you believe in are not inherently the same thing.

The fact that you think this truism rebuts anything I said is kinda sad, dontcha think?

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334134)

Debatable, for sure.

Not really, no.

Actually, it is. You claimed to know for a fact that nobody here believes in something in particular. You could not possibly be privileged to the opinion of every single person on slashdot. There may well be someone here who believes that you do not think for yourself.
 
 

After all, thinking for yourself and posting things you believe in are not inherently the same thing.

The fact that you think this truism rebuts anything I said is kinda sad, dontcha think?

No.

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334266)

You claimed to know for a fact that nobody here believes in something in particular.

False.

Going back to what I always do with you: first lie means I stop reading.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35334674)

You claimed to know for a fact that nobody here believes in something in particular.

False.

Let's review, shall we?

In your comment [slashdot.org] you said:
 

no one here believes I don't think for myself.

In which you indeed did claim to know what everyone here believes.

A reply was then submitted [slashdot.org] that pointed out the absurdity of your claim.

You had an opportunity at that point to admit that indeed you are not all-knowing and do not have access to the thoughts of every single slashdot user; you could have even done that without having to admit yourself to being in any way wrong. But instead you got defensive and accused the poster of lying.

Although your statement of

Going back to what I always do with you

Is curious - how many times do you think you've spoken to this particular anonymous coward?

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35334752)

Let's review, shall we?

Sorry, that's a lie. You don't wish to review, but to twist. I'll stop reading now.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35336716)

Let's review, shall we?

Sorry, that's a lie. You don't wish to review, but to twist.

That is a twisted - really quite close to lying - alternate definition of "twist". References were provided, and direct quotes taken. But if this is the closest you can come to admitting that what you said was inaccurate, I guess we can take it.
 
 

I'll stop reading now.

Probably for the best; if you read further you might learn something.

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35337190)

Sorry, "Anonymous Coward" is a lie. Coward is true ... Anonymous isn't. Gotta stop reading now.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35337330)

Good job there of completely dodging the matter of discussion, and changing it to a defense of your evasive techniques.

Perhaps this means that on some level you realize that indeed you do not have access to the innermost thoughts of every single slashdot user - not that we would expect you to admit that to be true.

Re:OK (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35338220)

Sorry, "Anonymous Coward" is a lie. Coward is true ... Anonymous isn't. Gotta stop reading now.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35341834)

Gee, you're not very creative, are you? Could that be part of why you don't work for slashdot anymore?

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#35346328)

As you claimed earlier to know the thoughts of every slashdot user, you should have no trouble telling us the slashdot ID of this anonymous coward. So why don't you go ahead and tell us who this is?

Or are you afraid of being wrong? We all know how you refuse to admit being wrong even when faced with mountains of contrary evidence; is that what you are hiding behind this time? Your own fear of not being as perfect as you tell yourself you are?

Re:OK (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35337748)

First, the church DOES welcome all voters. You're wrong again. Second, NO government budget is EVER unveiled, in my experience, in a place that can fit all voters.

Oh, really? Personally, I don't feel very welcome in a church, being atheist and all. And I suspect there are a lot of other people who don't feel veyr welcome there either.

Tea partiers represent the worst the republicans have to offer. They would prefer that gay people and non-christians didn't exist at all. And if they must exist, they certainly have no business making any decisions about government.

And they cloak all of this in the appealing rhetoric of reducing the influence of government in people's lives. But it's a lie. I consider the people who fall for that transparently ridiculous line to be the very worst sort of idiots, and a terrible curse born by the libertarian party.

Re:OK (0)

pudge (3605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35338202)

First, the church DOES welcome all voters. You're wrong again. Second, NO government budget is EVER unveiled, in my experience, in a place that can fit all voters.

Oh, really?

Yes.

Personally, I don't feel very welcome in a church, being atheist and all.

You made two obvious errors. First, this is not a random, arbitrary, or general church, it is a specific church. Second, what you feel is irrelevent. Many people don't feel very welcome in the State House or a Court or ... well, any other place you could mention. Your feelings have no significance of any sort to the discussion.

Tea partiers represent the worst the republicans have to offer.

As a "Tea Partier" -- I mostly agree with the principles I hear from Tea Party events, and I've attended, and performed music at, several Tea Party events -- I am interested in your reasons.

They would prefer that gay people and non-christians didn't exist at all.

You're lying about me. I would prefer no such thing. I prefer only that everyone is free to make their own choices. Further, even if you mean it in the general case, I've never heard ANYTHING about gays or non-Christians at Tea Party events.

And if they must exist, they certainly have no business making any decisions about government.

You're lying about me. I firmly believe all adult citizens should be involved, if they so choose, in making decisions about government. (And again, this doesn't apply to "Tea Partiers" at large, either.)

And they cloak all of this in the appealing rhetoric of reducing the influence of government in people's lives. But it's a lie.

You're lying about me. First, of course, I cloak not a damned thing. Second, there's no lie in my desire to reduce the influence of government in people's lives. (And again, this doesn't apply to "Tea Partiers" at large, either.)

I consider the people who fall for that transparently ridiculous line to be the very worst sort of idiots, and a terrible curse born by the libertarian party.

Except, of course, you've not demonstrated that my line is "ridiculous," let alone "transparently" so. (And again, this doesn't apply to "Tea Partiers" at large, either.)

You kinda suck at this. Maybe if you actually weren't completely ignorant about the subject matter, it would go better for you.

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35343268)

Perhaps you're new to "discussions" with Mr. Pudge here. Allow me to get you up to speed in case this is somehow your first encounter with him.

First, Pudge believes that he has an inherent right to speak on behalf of any number of groups or people. He believes that he can say anything on their behalf, without checking first to see if it is actually something that they would agree with.

Second, Pudge believes that he is completely infallible when he does make such a statement, and has no need to ever check to see if what he said made any sense whatsoever.

Third, any attempt to suggest that either of the above are in any way less than 100% factual is heresy. Hence there is no reason to suggest otherwise, as it is automatically unequivocally wrong.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?